Sanpal rejects reports of UAE asset freeze

Dubai businessman Satish Sanpal has denied claims that UAE authorities ordered a temporary freeze on assets linked to him, his wife and several companies during a money laundering investigation.

Sanpal, who appeared with his wife Tabinda Sanpal in the Netflix reality series Desi Bling, said no competent enforcement or regulatory authority had publicly announced action against him. UAE authorities had also issued no public comment confirming the reported directive by the time he made his statement.

“It is disappointing to see information being circulated by certain media publications in a manner that raises questions about the motives behind it,” Sanpal said.

He added that his priority remained protecting his family, employees and business interests from harm caused by what he described as unverified reporting. His representatives urged publications to exercise greater care when relying on unofficial information and to verify allegations before repeating them.

The denial followed reports claiming that the UAE Financial Intelligence Unit had instructed banks, financial institutions and virtual asset service providers to temporarily restrict access to funds, accounts, deposits, investments and safe-deposit boxes connected to Sanpal and his wife.

The reports said the purported instruction also covered ANAX Capital Asset Management Company, ANAX Capital Financial Markets LLC, ANAX Holding FZCO and SSB Bazaar General Trading LLC. They claimed financial institutions would be required to seek documentation establishing the legitimacy of transactions and the lawful origin of funds.

Sanpal’s representatives did not confirm that such a confidential instruction existed. Their response focused on the absence of any announcement or public disclosure by an authorised UAE body. A lack of public confirmation does not, by itself, establish whether confidential regulatory measures have or have not been taken.

Temporary account restrictions can form part of financial-intelligence procedures and do not amount to a criminal conviction or a finding that funds are illicit. Such measures may be used to preserve assets while authorities examine transactions, ownership structures or information received from reporting institutions and overseas agencies.

Sanpal said the controversy had not affected ANAX Developments, the property arm associated with his business group. He maintained that its projects, contractual commitments, governance arrangements, banking relationships and escrow accounts remained operational.

“The company continues to operate in the ordinary course, and all projects, banking arrangements, escrow accounts and business operations remain fully operational,” his statement said.

ANAX Holding is a Dubai-based group with interests that include property development, hospitality, financial services and strategic investments. Sanpal’s public profile expanded after his appearance in Desi Bling, which follows wealthy South Asian residents and entrepreneurs in Dubai.

The programme featured the Sanpals’ luxury lifestyle, including customised vehicles, jewellery and elaborate family celebrations. Their television exposure drew wider attention to Sanpal’s business career and to allegations that had circulated about him through digital platforms and publications outside the UAE.

Sanpal has previously challenged reports describing him as a fraudster, betting operator, hawala dealer or fugitive. The Delhi High Court granted him interim protection in May and restrained a group of media organisations, portals and journalists from publishing specified defamatory descriptions while legal proceedings and investigations remained pending.

The court observed that some reports had presented disputed accusations as established facts. It also noted that several allegations went beyond the contents of the police cases cited by publishers and that Sanpal had obtained bail in the proceedings examined by the court.

The order did not prevent legitimate reporting on police complaints, court documents or matters of public interest. It stressed, however, that media organisations should avoid language that prejudges an individual’s guilt or damages the right to reputation before judicial findings have been made.